In the field of aircraft training, beginning students typically are trained on small, reciprocating engine-powered (e.g., propeller-driven) aircraft, such as the Cessna 172, Piper Cherokee, and the like. Such aircraft generally have control systems specific to small aircraft. For example, there are usually separate controls for throttle, propeller pitch, fuel/air mixture, and the like. Moreover, many such aircraft have relatively rudimentary instrumentation packages, such as analog, “round-dial” gauges, including an altimeter, artificial horizon, a directional gyro, airspeed indicator, and the like, and typically have a yoke to provide input to the ailerons for directional inputs.
In contrast, turbine-powered (jet) aircraft, in particular military aircraft but also including commercial jets, typically offer a different set of controls for the pilot. For example, turbine technology eliminates the need for the triple controls (throttle, pitch and mixture) required for propeller aircraft, such that a jet cockpit typically provides only a single power control (or, alternatively, one per engine) to provide power input to the engine(s). Moreover, when compared to propeller-driven trainers, jet aircraft often provide different and/or integrated instrumentation packages, such as an attitude direction indicator (“ADI”) instead of a traditional artificial horizon and/or a horizontal situation indicator (“HSI”) instead of a directional gyro. As well, jet aircraft (and in particular, tactical military jets) often implement a stick instead of a yoke for aileron control, and feature tandem, as opposed to side-by-side seating.
These differences between jet aircraft and the trainers used to train pilots impose significant inefficiencies on the pilot training process. A pilot, after learning the control systems on a trainer, will have to unlearn much of that information when transitioning to a military jet, and will have to learn the new control systems required for piloting jet aircraft. Hence, it would be beneficial to provide control systems in training aircraft that better prepare pilots to transition to jet aircraft. Moreover, because a single type of trainer is often used to train pilots that will go on to fly a variety of jets, it would be beneficial to provide easy configurability of controls, to allow a pilot in training to use control systems similar to those on the aircraft the pilot eventually will fly, while minimizing the cost and inconvenience of providing different control systems in the training aircraft.
There are a variety of flight training systems known in the art. For example, some flight training systems rely relatively more heavily on in-flight training, while others rely more heavily on simulator-based training. Many systems seek to integrate in-flight training with simulator-based training. For example, the Individual Combat Aircrew Debriefing System (“ICADS”), available from Cubic Corporation provides a post-flight review of an in-flight training mission flown by a student. However, a limitation of such systems, even integrated systems, is that they merely allow review of what occurred during the training flight. The generally cannot allow an instructor to review hypothetical situations (e.g., “What if this had happened?” or “What if you had performed this action instead of what you actually did?”) other than merely conversing verbally with the student.